Petrowski v. Insurance Company
| Decision Date | 26 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 469,HAWKEYE-SECURITY,469 |
| Citation | 350 U.S. 495,100 L.Ed. 639,76 S.Ct. 490 |
| Parties | John M. PETROWSKI, Grace Ringle, a minor, by Ervin Ringle, her guardian ad litem, Francis Gelhar, et al., Petitioners, v. INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Richard P. Tinkham, Jr., Wausaw, Wis., for petitioner.
Mr. Victor M. Harding, Milwaukee, Wis., for respondent.
Respondent, Hawkeye-Security Insurance Company, filed a motion to quash the return of service of summons on the grounds that the District Court acquired no personal jurisdiction over it and that the power of attorney which it had filed with the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of the State of Wisconsin did not authorize him to accept service of process for it in this case. After this motion was denied, respondent filed its answer to the complaint in which it again pressed its claim that the District Court lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Subsequently, however, respondent filed (1) a motion to amend its answer and to interplead; (2) a counterclaim; (3) a stipulation and order adding a party-plaintiff and amending the complaint and answer; and (4) a stipulation that judgment be entered against the alleged insured in favor of the additional party-plaintiff. The latter stipulation included the following provision, together with others consistent with it and confirmatory of its purpose:
Following a trial on the merits, judgment was entered against respondent, but the Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, reversed on the ground that respondent's motion to quash should have been granted.
Upon examination of the record and the law, we conclude that the District Court had jurisdiction of the subject matter and that respondent, by its stipulation, waived any right to assert a lack of personal jurisdiction over it. We, therefore, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to it for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sternberg v. O'Neil
...U.S. 311, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964). Parties may stipulate to personal jurisdiction. Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co., 350 U.S. 495, 76 S.Ct. 490, 100 L.Ed. 639 (1956).5 Currently, all fifty states and the District of Columbia require the appointment of a local agent as......
-
Noble Sec., Inc. v. Miz Engineering, Ltd.
...upheld the personal jurisdiction of a district court based on a stipulation by one of the parties. Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Co., 350 U.S. 495, 76 S.Ct. 490, 100 L.Ed. 639 (1956). Therefore, if the parties may stipulate to personal jurisdiction, they should be able to stipulate to the s......
-
Williams v. Williams
...Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent , 375 U.S. 311, 316, 84 S.Ct. 411, 414, 11 L.Ed. 2d 354 [ (1964) ] ; Petrowski v. Hawkeye-Security Co ., 350 U.S. 495, 76 S.Ct. 490, 100 L.Ed. 639 [ (1956) ] ; Victory Transport Inc. v. Comisaria General de Abastecimientos y Transportes , 336 F.2d 354 [ (2d Cir. 196......
-
Brown v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
...to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court"); Petrowski v. Hawkeye–Sec. Ins. Co., 350 U.S. 495, 495–96, 76 S.Ct. 490, 100 L.Ed. 639 (1956) (per curiam ) (relying on parties' stipulation to sustain exercise of personal jurisdiction). Whether specific or......